Flood Justice
I read the Hebrew scriptures as Israel's story, or rather “collected stories.” In this compilation Israel interprets their own origins and later "history" for the purpose of teaching the ways of God to their children: the traditions of Israel passed on to future generations.
Christians have an unfortunate habit of reading the Hebrew scriptures as if they were intended as a simple rebuke of Israel and as evidence in the case against the terms of the covenant (i.e., the Law had a flaw, case closed). In response:
The “old” covenant was, purportedly with the inspiration of God, written by Israel for Israel, in the context of a relationship to God that was seen as everlasting and unchanging. In other words, whatever the form, this record of the covenant was not intended to be read in the third person, as a third party judging Israel’s failure to live up to God’s expectations. What Jews call the Torah is to be read in the first person plural, we Israel.
All of the Hebrew scriptures, and especially Genesis, should be read in the light of the Sinai covenant, not as preceding or following in a literal-historical sense. While the rebellions of Israel in the wilderness (as recounted in Exodus, Numbers, and elsewhere) may be held up as an “object lesson” concerning the covenant relationship of God with Israel, so also should the stories of all the patriarchs from Adam to Joseph, with their realistic (but not necessarily literal-historical) portrayals of both sin and righteousness, disobedience and faithfulness, judgment and redemption. To correctly interpret these stories, moreover, we must read them as if knowledge and experience of the Torah of Moses was used in their composition, which was probably the case. That Genesis precedes Exodus in the order of recorded events does not mean that Genesis was written before Exodus or without knowledge of the covenant recorded therein.
The Hebrew scriptures--especially the Torah, the early Prophets (Joshua-Kings), and the Writings--teach by telling stories, and the stories are so compelling and dramatic that the literalists have supposed they represent history in the same sense as modern texts of history.
The Hebrew scriptures tell the stories of God and man (particularly Israel) at several levels and from a variety of points of view. By contrast, the Christian New Testament (in it's use of the Hebrew scriptures) flattens and straightens the entire landscape into one long "object lesson" of sin and rebellion leading to the hope of a redeemer who, foretold and pictured throughout the "object lesson", finally comes in the person of Jesus Christ. While teachings of the Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of the Christian New Testament are related enough to justify the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, it is not accurate to claim "the testaments tell the same story" or to assume that the Hebrew scriptures can be reduced to one story.
The literal meaning of a text is what the author intended it to mean and represent, not what the fundamentalist of today imagines, e.g., Noah’s flood as the factual account of a real event. That the patriarchs belong to the history of Israel, I do not question. That all the events of their lives (down to the conversations recorded) represent historical fact, I do question.
Whether Abraham, Moses and the rest of the patriarchs did and said all that is recorded about them is open to as much doubt as the Gospel accounts of Jesus, but a key difference is that no one has claimed Abraham or Moses were gods or that our salvation derives from some act they performed. In the case of Moses, as important as he is to Israel’s story of redemption and revelation, the accounts of his life and death make very clear that:
1. He considered himself unworthy of the task given him;
2. He screwed up from time to time;
3. He died a natural death (old age), and his burial place was kept secret ("to this day no one knows where his grave is" Deut. 34:6) probably so that pilgrimages of the superstitious would not be made to his grave.
On the other hand, the accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, Job and his philosopher friends, Jonah and the big fish, among others, were not written to be read as history. Some of the obvious clues: Adam represents mankind, Eve is the mother of all living (allegory); Noah alone was righteous and blameless in his generation (hyperbole); Job lived in the land of Uz (about as easy to pinpoint as the Garden of Eden!) and was so blameless and upright that there was no one on earth like him (hyperbole again); and poor Jonah was swallowed by the big fish only to land up in hated Nineveh (irony). The fundamentalists don't know how to read their Bibles and therefore totally miss the beauty of some brilliantly constructed stories.
Back to Noah. I do not consider the story of Noah to be historical, or, more importantly, that it was ever intended to be understood as an historical account. Apart from the absurdity of the ark, three reasons point to this conclusion: a) Allusions within the story to the creation, to burnt offerings, to clean and unclean animals, and other matters that look forward to Sinai, imply a concern beyond historicity of the events; b) The etymology of Noah's name is woven into the story in a creative way to make a point more important than historicity of the events; c) The mythological beginning of the story, with “sons of God” and Nephilim, places the story outside of history; and d) The use of exaggeration--specifically, that only Noah is righteous, everyone else is wicked to the core--suggests that Noah is a typecast of "the righteous man", presented in dramatic contrast to the wickedness around him.
The key to understanding the Flood, as a unique display of God’s overwhelming and indiscriminate destruction, is in the incredible exaggeration found necessary to justify it: apart from Noah, we are told, there wasn’t a single righteous human being, but in fact humankind was so wicked that “EVERY inclination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY evil ALL the time,” (6:5) and the earth was “FILLED with violence.” (6:11) Now really, doesn’t this seem a bit of a stretch? Even on my worst days I have a couple of innocent thoughts!
In addition, we are told “the earth was corrupt” and “all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” (6:11,12) The term corrupt is from the same root ( שחת ) as the term used later when God declares “I am about to destroy them with the earth.” (6:13) In other words, perhaps they brought it on themselves. I’ve heard this line before somewhere.
So why did the author(s) of this account find it necessary to describe the state of humankind in such preposterous terms, as lacking any particle of good? Skip forward a few chapters to Abraham's plea before God: "Will you wipe out the righteous with the wicked?" (Gen. 18:23) Noah doesn’t make such a plea because the answer has already been given: there are not any righteous persons to spare save Noah. Down to the smallest critter, “all flesh” is condemned without qualification. This is the necessary precondition for ‘flood justice’ to be just.
Following the Flood, God makes declarations (Gen. 8:21, 9:15) that would seem to preclude further use of a universal flood (or, shall we say, flood justice), that now God will only use measured justice in His dealings with humankind and all creation.
Isaiah 54:9-10 goes even further, to a realm beyond mere justice in God’s covenant relationship with Israel:
For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for just as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from you, nor my covenant of peace be removed, says the Lord who has mercy on you.
So what, you say. So what is an example of flood justice that we can relate to? For me, the story of Noah’s flood relates to my problem with the concept of Hell, especially in the form of unmeasured retribution, or everlasting torment. What a monstrous idea of justice. Who, after all, would qualify for this Hell? A serial killer, a Hitler, perhaps, but who else? Cain committed a heinous act, and paid dearly for his crime, but even he received justice tempered by mercy. Even the worst of our sins are finite (in sphere of influence, in depth of malice). We are “only human” in this sense, not gods capable of unlimited evil.
Let Isaiah 64:7-8 MT make my point:
But now, O Lord, you are our father; we are the clay, and you our potter, and we are all the work of your hand.
Do not be angry beyond measure, O Lord, nor remember iniquity forever; behold, look, we are all your people.
© 2005, 2012 Charles F. Hudson